398 replies to this topic

[Pahoran]

ave maria, on Oct 15 2005, 10:56 PM, said:

Zakuska, on Oct 16 2005, 01:43 AM, said:

Havent Catholic nurses done the same thing?

I seem to recall someone on one of these boards who almost died at birth and the nurse without asking the parents Baptized him catholic.

Baptism in danger of death is a very different thing from baptism of corpses.

So is Baptism for the Dead.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

ave maria, on Oct 16 2005, 01:58 PM, said:

If you'd like to explore Paul's attitude toward baptism for the dead, that's likely another thread.

If you're suggesting that the scripture cites approval for the practice, I'd simply say you might inquire why Paul used the term "they" instead of "we."

I'm sorry, but that's a blind alley.  There is no "they" in the Greek; that is an artifact of the translation, necessary to put together a coherent English sentence.  The actual phrase in the Greek is:

Hoi baptizomenoi huper ton nekron

Which means, quite simply "the being-baptized-ones on behalf of those dead ones."  The arms-length disassociation you want to load into that "they" is simply not there.

Quote

I'd also add a point that I believe no one else has made previously on this thread regarding baptism for the dead, and that is that it's generally assumed that anyone engaging in it as even a heretical practice in the early days of Christianity presumed to baptize someone who was not previously Christian into the Christian faith.

Latter-day Saints, however, do not presume to do the same.  Literally thousands of the names they harvest from various sources are those that have been previously baptized in Christian faiths (in fact, it's frequently baptismal records of various parish churches that are culled to acquire the same).  So what they intend with the practice is somewhat different than what anyone at the time of early Christianity intended.

Well AM, either you're making a distinction without a meaningful difference, or you really don't know this, which is entirely possible; but there is such a thing as a non-valid baptism.

Yes, really there is.

To the Church of Jesus Christ, those baptized into other churches are in exactly the same situation as the disciples Paul found in Ephesus, who had been baptized without the proper authority.  Paul didn't say "oh, well that's okay then," he baptized them again.  (See Acts 19:1-5.)

As do we.

All this talk about "intent" might be interesting to canon lawyers and such, but the obedient of God have only concerned themselves with two questions: (1) what does God want us to do, and (2) who is authorised to do these things?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Dunamis]

This thread has had two moderators in it.   This thread slid into personal attacks within the first page.  Get back on track and stay there please.   Ave Maria has been queued and has deleted moderator comments so I will repeat them here.  We obviously do not react to sarcasm and generic smart mouthing or the board would cease to exist.   What we will not tolerate is beginning a thread with personal attacks on more than one poster and ending it by using personal information about another poster's life as ad hominem,  posting  identifying information about another and attaching random names to moderators.   We will always have personality conflicts on this board.   That is not an excuse to violate board policy.   Now back to business.

[johnny]

Quote

Zakuska  writes,
Paul a Jew and the Jews practicing proxy Baptism for their kindred dead. Adds quite a bit of context to what Paul was saying now doesn't it?

Their is no evidence that Paul or any of the other apostles practiced baptism for the dead.

[johnny]

Quote

Pahoran  writes,
Which means, quite simply "the being-baptized-ones on behalf of those dead ones." The arms-length disassociation you want to load into that "they" is simply not there.

The Bible does not support that Paul practiced baptism for the dead.

Quote

To the Church of Jesus Christ, those baptized into other churches are in exactly the same situation as the disciples Paul found in Ephesus, who had been baptized without the proper authority. Paul didn't say "oh, well that's okay then," he baptized them again. (See Acts 19:1-5.)

Proper authority is not needed for baptism ... since this off-topic open another thread and I will be glad to discuss it.

Quote

All this talk about "intent" might be interesting to canon lawyers and such, but the obedient of God have only concerned themselves with two questions: (1) what does God want us to do, and (2) who is authorised to do these things?

(1) Do you think God want us to baptize the dead?  Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny.

(2)The Catholic Church obviously is authorized to baptize ... open another thread and let's talk.

[johnny]

Quote

Dunamis   writes,
Get back on track and stay there please.

To get back on track ...

The Early Church Fathers do not support the following LDS teachings:

- men can become another God like the Heavenly Father
- the apostles practiced baptism for the dead
- an apostasy as described by the LDS church
- a restoration as described by the LDS church
- the Father, the Son, and the HG are three Gods

The Early Church Fathers do support the following teachings:

- the Father, the Son, and the HG are not three Gods
- Real Presence of the flesh in the Bread
- The bread and wine transubstantiation
- Infant Baptism
- Apostolic Succession
- Purgatory
- Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary
- Devotion and intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary
- Original Sin
- Ex Nihilo(Creation out of Nothing)

[Zakuska]

So you don't think Paul himself practiced Jewish washing rituals for his Kindred dead?

[johnny]

Quote

Zakuska  writes,
So you don't think Paul himself practiced Jewish washing rituals for his Kindred dead?

Are you talking before or after his conversion ... do you have scripture to support your ideas?

[Zakuska]

Do you disagree with your catholic website?

http://www.newadvent...then/02258b.htm

Quote

Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism.

The Jews practiced it Paul was a Jew.  Why would he rely on a false practice to prove a truth?

Edited by Zakuska, 17 October 2005 - 10:04 AM.

[johnny]

Quote

Zakuska  writes,
The Jews practiced it Paul was a Jew. Why would he rely on a false practice to prove a truth?

The practice was actual ... but was not an apostolic practice.

[Zakuska]

Would Paul rely on an error to prove a truth?

[johnny]

Quote

Zakuska  writes, 
Would Paul rely on an error to prove a truth?

The Catholic Encylopedia describe it this way:

http://www.newadvent...then/02258b.htm

There seems to be no question here of any such absurd custom as conferring baptism on corpses, as was practiced later by some heretical sects.

[Zakuska]

Yep and this comes in the Parapgraph following that...

http://www.newadvent...then/02258b.htm

Quote

Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism.

The Jews practiced it Paul was a Jew.  Why would he rely on a false practice to prove a truth?

[johnny]

Quote

Magyar writes,
The Jews practiced it Paul was a Jew. Why would he rely on a false practice to prove a truth?

What do you mean by "false practice" ... it was a true practice that was practiced by some, just like infant baptism was a true practice by some.

[Zakuska]

Did you mean Zakuska?

You call it a "false evil pagan practice".

[Zakuska]

johnny, on Oct 17 2005, 12:12 PM, said:

Quote

Magyar writes,
The Jews practiced it Paul was a Jew. Why would he rely on a false practice to prove a truth?

What do you mean by "false practice" ... it was a true practice that was practiced by some, just like infant baptism was a true practice by some.

I must save this post for posterity... Johnny has made another flip flop.

There never was an infant Baptized in the Bible.

Christ put his hands on them and blessed them because they where already part of the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10
13 �?�¶ And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little achild, he shall not enter therein.
16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.


So now baptism for the dead is valid?  

Edited by Zakuska, 17 October 2005 - 12:19 PM.

[Pahoran]

johnny, on Oct 17 2005, 06:56 AM, said:

Quote

Pahoran�?�  writes,
Which means, quite simply "the being-baptized-ones on behalf of those dead ones." The arms-length disassociation you want to load into that "they" is simply not there.

The Bible does not support that Paul practiced baptism for the dead.

The Bible also does not support the claim that Paul attacked or disapproved of the practice, either.  Rather, he cites it as evidence of the resurrection of the dead.  How could that be, if it were anything other than an authoritative practice?

Quote

Quote

To the Church of Jesus Christ, those baptized into other churches are in exactly the same situation as the disciples Paul found in Ephesus, who had been baptized without the proper authority. Paul didn't say "oh, well that's okay then," he baptized them again. (See Acts 19:1-5.)

Proper authority is not needed for baptism ... since this off-topic open another thread and I will be glad to discuss it.

On the contrary, the question of validity of a baptism is certainly relevant to the point at issue.  The "intent" of the early saints was to confer a valid baptism upon those who had not received one.  Our "intent" is the same.  Your bald assertion does not negate the scriptural record, which unequivocally shows that those who had received a non-valid baptism needed a valid one.  And the sticking point certainly seems to have been the authority by which the original baptisms were administered.

Quote

Quote

All this talk about "intent" might be interesting to canon lawyers and such, but the obedient of God have only concerned themselves with two questions: (1) what does God want us to do, and (2) who is authorised to do these things?

(1) Do you think God want us to baptize the dead?

No.

But I know, without a doubt, that God does indeed want us to baptize on behalf of the dead.  (That's what that "huper" means.)

Quote

Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny.

And if, through no fault of his own, a man is unable to fulfill some necessary requirement in his lifetime, is the grace of God then at an end for him?

Quote

(2)The Catholic Church obviously is authorized to baptize ... open another thread and let's talk.

That's certainly not obvious to me.  But whether it is or not, the fact remains that, since baptizing those who had not been validly baptized is the biblical practice, if baptism for the dead is also valid, then performing baptisms on behalf of the dead who had received an invalid baptism in life is exactly the same as performing baptisms on behalf of the dead who had received no baptism in life.

Regards,
Pahoran

[johnny]

Quote

Zakuska writes,
The Bible also does not support the claim that Paul attacked or disapproved of the practice, either. Rather, he cites it as evidence of the resurrection of the dead. How could that be, if it were anything other than an authoritative practice?

It was an actual practice, it was not a Christian authoritative practice.

Quote

On the contrary, the question of validity of a baptism is certainly relevant to the point at issue. The "intent" of the early saints was to confer a valid baptism upon those who had not received one. Our "intent" is the same. Your bald assertion does not negate the scriptural record, which unequivocally shows that those who had received a non-valid baptism needed a valid one. And the sticking point certainly seems to have been the authority by which the original baptisms were administered.

I would agree on the issue of a valid baptism ... that is why the Catholic Church does not consider a LDS baptism as valid.

Quote

But I know, without a doubt, that God does indeed want us to baptize on behalf of the dead. (That's what that "huper" means.)

Why does God want us to  baptize on behalf of the dead ... is it going to change their eternal destination?

Quote

And if, through no fault of his own, a man is unable to fulfill some necessary requirement in his lifetime, is the grace of God then at an end for him?

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.  Those who have died without Baptism we to trust in God's mercy.

Quote

That's certainly not obvious to me. But whether it is or not, the fact remains that, since baptizing those who had not been validly baptized is the biblical practice,

This example is for those alive ... not for those who have died.

[Bertram]

It is ghedmondson's Birthday to-day......so may i wish him all the best!... and may he have many many more....

The Board is uncertain of the Gender...but I read one of his Posts which claims that when on a Mission he was paired up with a Companion, who...(QUOTE).."HE spoke very little Spanish or English...".....

I therefore assume it was Male/Male?????

So Board Administrators......HE has a Birthday to-day!!!...

He has not posted for some time...back in 2005...I wonder where he is and what he is doing with his Life?...

Edited by Bertram, 01 March 2006 - 04:18 PM.